North Korea dominated the 72nd session of the U.N. General Assembly last week, but a peaceful solution South Korea is searching for was not in sight. The leaders of the U.S., Japan, and South Korea agreed to apply maximum pressure on North Korea, which is committed to complete its final phase of nuclear armament.

Through a bilateral summit, the U.S. and South Korea agreed to strengthen their joint deterrent capability: The U.S. will expand deployment of its most advanced military assets to Korea and the region, and South Korea will acquire advanced equipment from the U.S.

On Sept. 22, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un issued an unprecedented statement in the capacity of the chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK that said, "We will consider … exercising of a corresponding, highest level hard-line countermeasure in history." This was Kim's rebuke of Trump's threat on Sept. 19 to "totally destroy" North Korea, "if the U.S. is forced to defend itself or its allies." He also said Kim was a "Rocket Man" who is "on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime."

Trump's speech to the General Assembly became instantly controversial at home and abroad for its belligerent language of "total destruction," and branding the North Korean regime as a "band of criminals." North Korean foreign minister Ri Young-ho said, "It would be a dog's dream if he (Trump) had intended to scare us by the sound of a dog barking." Kim's statement also employed an analogy to a dog: "A frightened dog barks louder."

Kim also said Trump's remarks convinced him that "the path I chose is correct," promising that he will make "the U.S. pay dearly for Trump's call for totally destroying the DPRK." He called Trump "a mentally deranged dotard," "a rogue and gangster who is fond of playing with fire." Ri told reporters that his leader might order "a detonation of the most powerful H-bomb in the Pacific."

Trump's passage that sounded like an ultimatum was not on tweets or improvised off the script. The speech must have gone through a process of review at the White House before it was presented to the President, who may have made some revision or probably added his own words. The question was whether it reflected the Trump administration's decision to give up diplomacy to take military action.

According to an AP report, President Moon Jae-in, who has turned to a harsh stance against the North since its recent nuclear and missile tests, complemented Trump's "very strong statement," saying "it would help change North Korea." If the report was correct, Moon was wrong.

However, Moon deserves credit for his resolve to keep peace and to prevent war, while pursuing the denuclearization of North Korea. Recently, Moon's language sounded like that of his conservative predecessors _ Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak, when he said, "North Korea will fall to an irrecoverable level, if it continues its provocations."

The latest warning from Trump came after increased talk of military action in Washington, following North Korea's launch on Sept. 15 of a second Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile that flew over Japan for 3,700 kilometers at an altitude of 770 kilometers. On Sept. 3, North Korea conducted its sixth nuclear test, for which the UN Security Council imposed additional sanctions. On Sept. 21, Washington imposed more sanctions to curb trade with North Korea.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster defended Trump's language as "completely appropriate" in that it gives clarity, defining the point of "being forced to defend" as "if or when North Korea attacks." U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said Trump does not want war. Haley said a few days earlier that if diplomacy fails, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis "will take care of it." "We have a whole lot of military options."

Mattis recently mentioned a military option that would not risk destruction of Seoul, without revealing what that option is. The range of options ready and available for now should include a preventive strike, cyber-attack on missile launchers, intercepting a missile on trajectory, and a decapitation operation to remove Kim Jong-un.

Any of these and other military options entails the risk of all out retaliation from the North, which will likely escalate to a major war that will not exclude the use of nuclear weapons, spreading to the entire region. This is why a peaceful resolution is imperative. What's your take?

Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the Institute of Korean-American Studies. He can be contacted at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.